Attention: Mike Mearls Gender-neutral class descriptions please!

After reading the recent Legend and Lore article by Mike Mearls, I was not happy to see 'gender-specific' descriptions being given to the sorcerer and warlock.

It's not hard to write 'gender-neutral' class descriptions. Fall back on the plural if you must. Use "their" (possessive singular) rather than "his" or "her". Heck, use them, they, or the just write "the sorcerer" or "the warlock" when you feel the need to type "he" or "she". It's not hard to curtail this habit, and will only help make a clean break from 3rd-edition-isms on a stylistic level.

Okay, rant over (for now).
For the past couple of editions, D&D books have gone with the method of simply alternating between male and female pronouns. While the is miles better than just using the terrible, horrible, "gender-neutral he", I agree that simply using the singular "they" would be best, especially considering that D&D does give us plenty of options to play character that are neither "he" nor "she". The uneducated will be upset about "they" being used as singular, but it's not like it's going to stop them from buying, so just think of it as a learning opportunity.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
The uneducated will be upset about "they" being used as singular, but it's not like it's going to stop them from buying, so just think of it as a learning opportunity.



Generally speaking, the educated are the ones who object to improper grammar, not the uneducated.


(Yes, I'm aware that there is historical precedent for the singular they.  There's historical precedent for writing entire books without vowels too.  I don't see anyone suggesting that we should return to that style.)


(TBH I'm not even against singular they.  I've been using it for years even though I know it's technically incorrect.  I'm mostly just being pedantic because I dislike the way you said it.)
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
Previous editions used He and She every other class. Druid, Monk, and Paladin in 3.5e used Feminine pronouns. It seems more inclusive in my opinion for female gamers, especially since it doesn't seem to stereotype the classes that are talked about in this way. I know more male Druids than female ones. And more Female fighters than male ones.
Ant Farm
I find it mildly amusing that the moment they start using feminine pronouns for half the classes, men feel strange and want them to use gender neutral pronouns. Women have been dealing with male pronouns forever. I lump myself in this same thing; I found it very strange to read "she", but I had to consider what the other half must have felt all this time.

I am a proponent for "they" as a singular, gender neutral pronoun. It seems to be slowly taking hold. My English professor hated it, but I'm sure she hated other changes to the language over the generations. 
'They' feels like a kludge to me, especially as it brings in ambiguity between singular and plural.  Its time may come, or the English language may yet develop a proper gender-neutral personal pronoun.  For now, no such word exists in English.

I like the approach of picking a gender at random for each class.  Avoid bias and ensure approximate parity, and all's well in my book.
For the past couple of editions, D&D books have gone with the method of simply alternating between male and female pronouns. While the is miles better than just using the terrible, horrible, "gender-neutral he", I agree that simply using the singular "they" would be best, especially considering that D&D does give us plenty of options to play character that are neither "he" nor "she".

If written properly, you should never have to use "they" as a singular. For example, "he cast a spell", easily becomes, "the sorcerer cast a spell". As another option, refer to the class as a plural and use "they" to your hearts content ("they cast their spells").

I hate political correctness.  Language is to communicate clearly and nothing else.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Yes, I'm aware that there is historical precedent for the singular they.

It's not just historical. It's also contemporary. The funny thing is that many people use the singular "they" all of the time without even realizing it but then object to it when it's brought up.

I've been using it for years even though I know it's technically incorrect.

Singular they is absolutely grammatically correct, and it is indeed the academically preferred method of refering to a singular person whose prefered gendered pronoun is unknown.

I'm mostly just being pedantic because I dislike the way you said it.

Yes, I hadn't realized how much sting my post was loaded with. Oh well.

I am a proponent for "they" as a singular, gender neutral pronoun. It seems to be slowly taking hold. My English professor hated it, but I'm sure she hated other changes to the language over the generations.

Actually, "they" has been used as singular for longer than "he" has been used as gender-neutral. Really, the singular they has been around for a super long time. It's just been subtle is all.

'They' feels like a kludge to me, especially as it brings in ambiguity between singular and plural.

Context clues. Anyway, the reason that the singular they is the preferred method, despite some people confusing singular and plural, is because it's still the best option. It adequately removed gender disparity from the equation while not being combersome and without having to invent a new word.

Its time may come, or the English language may yet develop a proper gender-neutral personal pronoun.  For now, no such word exists in English.

Actually, many such words exist. They just have next to no popularity, so every use of one must necessarily turn into a discussion of gender politics.

Avoid bias and ensure approximate parity, and all's well in my book.

Actually, even alternating between "he" and "she" doesn't ensure approximate parity. There are a lot of people that doesn't include.

If written properly, you should never have to use "they" as a singular. For example, "he cast a spell", easily becomes, "the sorcerer cast a spell".

That gets cumbersome way quicker than you think it does.

I hate political correctness.

"Political correctness" is a loaded term nowadays. People use it in contexts now when all that it means is "I hate having to consider other peoples' feelings that I never had to consider before.". Yeah, that makes you sound cool and edgy...

Language is to communicate clearly and nothing else.

That is objectively scientifically false. Language is a lens through which we view our world. It teaches us things and we learn from it, even if we're not conscious of it.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Most characters are either one sex or the other.  Except for a few, like shardminds.

As long as there's not a bias, there's nothing wrong with gender pronouns.  There wasn't one in 4e.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Previous editions used He and She every other class. Druid, Monk, and Paladin in 3.5e used Feminine pronouns. It seems more inclusive in my opinion for female gamers, especially since it doesn't seem to stereotype the classes that are talked about in this way. I know more male Druids than female ones. And more Female fighters than male ones.

Another way not to stereotype classes is by not attaching any sex to them at all, making them equally inclusive to all (should an individual gamer feel even a little bit sensitive to this issue).
Previous editions used He and She every other class. Druid, Monk, and Paladin in 3.5e used Feminine pronouns. It seems more inclusive in my opinion for female gamers, especially since it doesn't seem to stereotype the classes that are talked about in this way. I know more male Druids than female ones. And more Female fighters than male ones.

Another way not to stereotype classes is by not attaching any sex to them at all, making them equally inclusive to all (should an individual gamer feel even a little bit sensitive to this issue).


Is there any way to use a gender pronoun for an individual character without "attaching" a sex to the class that character is a part of?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
English has a singular non-gendered pronoun:

"It"

Our alternative, I guess, would be to start using "Sorcerperson" or something.

Most characters are either one sex or the other.  Except for a few, like shardminds.

Changelings and Warforged come to mind as big ones, but even beyond races, you can still have normally humanoid characters that don't necessarily fit into the gender binary, just as there are a lot of real people that don't fit into the gender binary.

English has a singular non-gendered pronoun:

"It"
Our alternative, I guess, would be to start using "Sorcerperson" or something.

No, "it" is inadequate because it's not a personal pronoun but rather a pronoun used for objects. We have enough objectification of people in our world without bringing it that far into our language too.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
English has a singular non-gendered pronoun:

"It"

Our alternative, I guess, would be to start using "Sorcerperson" or something.


This isn't a rocket science. Rather than "he" or "she", you simply write "the sorcerer".
Crimson_Concerto's post was perfectly written, bringing up every point--including, yes, writing "the sorcerer" over and over would be cumbersome to both write and read. It'd become to repetative.

Until English has a gender-neutral pronoun to refer to living things, why bother to take offense? Your arguement should be taken up with the people who make the English dictionary, not WotC for writing examples and articles the same way everyone else does. Please re-read Crimson_Concerto's post, slowly, and take in what is being said.

Usstan kla'ath l' orn d'lil Orbdrinus Senger! Vhaeraun zhah naut elghinyrr; uk zhah er'griff velkresa wun l' veldrin...

English has a singular non-gendered pronoun:

"It"
Our alternative, I guess, would be to start using "Sorcerperson" or something.

No, "it" is inadequate because it's not a personal pronoun but rather a pronoun used for objects. We have enough objectification of people in our world without bringing it that far into our language too.

This isn't a rocket science. Rather then "he" or "she", you simply write "the sorcerer".

That sounds like a good idea... if you've never tried it. If it were really that easy, though, then pronouns wouldn't exist. Seriously, pronouns make communication faaar less cumbersome. Just repeating the subject over and over can get extremely tiresome:
"The wizard needs to stop by the wizard's house to pick up the wizard's spellbook so that the wizard can look up the spell that the wizard developed back when the wizard was still in school."

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Doesn't bother me much.  I'll pick up on whichever approach the writer is taking ('he', 'she', or 'they') and then promptly forget about it.

My personal preference is to use 'he' or 'she' interchangeably.  Seems more inclusive then 'they'.  This approach is especially appropriate for D&D I think.  Male players sometimes play female PCs and vice-versa.  D&D isn't like Monopoly where the player is represented by a token ;).        
/\ Art
For the record I don't much care either way.
English has a singular non-gendered pronoun:

"It"

Our alternative, I guess, would be to start using "Sorcerperson" or something.


This isn't a rocket science. Rather than "he" or "she", you simply write "the sorcerer".



Trust me..as someone who RPs via the written word quite often (not gonna say I'm the best at writting this stuff but still..).

Just constantly using 'the adjetive' does not work well at all.

I made, just for the fun of it, a character who i decided I would NEVER use gender indicative pronouns for.  And I mean never..not in description, not in talk..nowhere.

I can't even get by with just saying that characters name repeatedly in describing actions that the character may take.  This is because of the way the english language is made and used.  You just don't use the exact same noun to describe something without comming off as awkward and eventually getting on the nervers of the reader.  You need other descriptors.

In the case of my character I tend to use 2 of them name and species (setting with more than humans) even then it can get a little bit..monotinous.  So I often will find ways to give the characters name in different ways, or use multiple ways to use that characters species name.

But it still winds up..feeling very hinky and in a work like wizards gives out...it just isn't anywhere even close to professional..and it will only make their work look that much worse.  So no wizards shouldn't start to write "the sorcerer" or whatever, it just won't work correctly.  And honestly if you do think it will..well just try to write out such a description itself...that is if you didn't get tired of me constantly using 'that character' in order to describe the character who's gender I won't reveal.
the purpose of the book is to convey information in a way that is easy to understand, writing in a roundabout fashion by useing "they" to mean one person, or saying something like "the sorcerer gains five spells per level until the sorcerer gains his 6th level" does not help that. using "it" is worse by far. "the sorcerer gains five spells per level until the it gains his 6th level" is just asking for confusion

like it or not the english langage default pronoun is male, which means that when you assume a female pronouns it gets confusing. if something is using male pronouns they can easily assume that its generic, if the same book switches to female pronouns they start to assume there is a reason for it. like maybe most druids are female, or maybe they have to be female.

the end result is you add confusion and gain nothing whatsoever in return.


Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
Writing in a roundabout fashion by useing "they" to mean one person...

It's not roundabout. It's so common that you've probably read a lot of things that use singular they and not even noticed because, for some reason for a lot of people, it only seems like a big deal when actually addressed openly.

like it or not the english langage default pronoun is male...

That is not acceptable. Even if it were true (and, I will remind you, it is not) that our only option for a singular, personal, gender-neutral pronoun were masculine, that would then be something that we should change. "That's just the way it is" has never been a good enough reason for anything.

besides by far most gamers are male, so assuming that most characters will be is far from a bad assumtion anyway.

That's a horrible assumption for a lot of reasons. The first big one is that acting like this is a male-dominated hobby, even if it's true, only makes the problem worse. The second big one is that male players don't always play male characters. I'm male, and probably the majority of characters that I've played have been female.

if you dont like this fact about english, tough its how it works. its like complaining about gravity, it wont get you anywhere and makes you look stupid.

That's a terribly ignorant analogy. Gravity isn't sexist, and we can't change gravity. Neither of those things are true of the gender-neutral "he".

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
He/she alternated is my preference.  I think it adds more imagery and allows the writer to tie things to images that go along with the class and if they go the 3e route iconics.  So the wizard uses she because they are talking about a concrete example the elf mialle or whatever her name was.  I thnk it ends p being more evocative and a better choice overall.  
Well, obviously, any sentence that needs a pronoun is already injecting too much mandatory fluff.

Right?



Seriously guys, any description much beyond "A [class] can represent [archetype], [historical reference], [copyright-evading implied reference to Tolkien]" is just trying too hard.
Still waiting for the answer to my question.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
It seems strange to me that people still get so worked up over pronouns in a rule book.

The necromancer background, for example, wherein you capture the soul of a recently murdered individual, then destroy it for a minor boon... this doesn't raise eyebrows.  

But for someone to have to determine that a fighter, though referred to as female in an example, is capable of being male still... that's an issue?
 
'That's just, like, your opinion, man.'
It seems strange to me that people still get so worked up over pronouns in a rule book.

The necromancer background, for example, wherein you capture the soul of a recently murdered individual, then destroy it for a minor boon... this doesn't raise eyebrows.  

But for someone to have to determine that a fighter, though referred to as female in an example, is capable of being male still... that's an issue?

The difference is that the necromancer isn't real, and what it does isn't really possible. On the other hand, damaging gender disparity is very real, and the language that we use is an example of it. That's why people get "so worked up" about it; it's subtle, but it does have real consequences.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
It seems strange to me that people still get so worked up over pronouns in a rule book.

The necromancer background, for example, wherein you capture the soul of a recently murdered individual, then destroy it for a minor boon... this doesn't raise eyebrows.  

But for someone to have to determine that a fighter, though referred to as female in an example, is capable of being male still... that's an issue?

The difference is that the necromancer isn't real, and what it does isn't really possible. On the other hand, damaging gender disparity is very real, and the language that we use is an example of it. That's why people get "so worked up" about it; it's subtle, but it does have real consequences.


But there are people who commit armed robbery and murder, which is very real and very damaging.  Yet we tend not to care so much that it describes the vast majority of adventuring parties.

Not that I agree with him, but I do find what we don't choose to object to just as interesting as what we do.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
"The wizard needs to stop by the wizard's house to pick up the wizard's spellbook so that the wizard can look up the spell that the wizard developed back when the wizard was still in school."

Perfect, I was waiting for something like this. Mand12, this is for you as well.

"The wizard needs to stop by their house to look up a personalized spell, one that had been developed while still in school."

That being said, your exampled sentence belongs more to a story, begging sexual identification, than game mechanics, which do not.
But there are people who commit armed robbery and murder, which is very real and very damaging. Yet we tend not to care so much that it describes the vast majority of adventuring parties.

But the difference is still in what's real in what's not. When you play the game, you're not really murdering people and robbing them. However, you can while playing the game really perpetuate damaging gender disparities. I don't disagree that the whole murder and robbery thing isn't problematic in its own ways, but they're just not related issues, and we really can worry about both if them if we want to. This thread just happens to be about only one of them more specifically. I'd be really interested to participate in a thread about the whole murder and robbery thing, though.

Political Correctness should be burned at the stake.

"Political Correctness" is a loaded term used by people who don't like to have to admit that they just don't like being called out on it when they've done something that shows they clearly are ignorant of other people's feelings. Similar related terms include "oversensitive people", "extreme minority", and "looking to get offended". They're absolutely useless terms and only serve to demonstrate the ignorance and callousness of the people who cling to them.

"The wizard needs to stop by their house to look up a personalized spell, one that had been developed while still in school."

Mmhmm.
Also, your version of the sentence carries a different set of information than the original sentence does.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
So you're saying that the class entries shouldn't have example characters?  Have you directly answered my question?  It's a simple question.  Is it possible?  Yes or no.

Also, what's wrong with your posts?  They're breaking the forums.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
So i'll say right off that i, personally, think this is a relatively small issue, and honestly isn't even worth arguing over, and in the end your beef is with the english language as a whole and not really with WOTC.

However, that said, if I had to choose a preference, i would actually prefer they just do it using second-person personal pronouns instead of third person. Which is, actually, looking at the playtest packet what they're doing at the moment.

This would be basically saying things like "You", "your", and "yours", etc. instead of "he", "her", "him", "she", etc.

So, for example, it would be something like "As a sorcerer, you cast spells using willpower. Whenever you spend X points of willpower, you...blah blah blah blah" 

The reason i say this is because if they refer to it in third person, it gives you the feel that your character is someone seperate from you, where as if you write it in second person, it makes it feel more like your character IS you, since you're going to "roleplay" this character anyways.
"Political Correctness" is a loaded term used by people who don't like to have to admit that they just don't like being called out on it when they've done something that shows they clearly don't care about other people's feelings. Similar related terms include "oversensitive people", "extreme minority", and "looking to get offended". They're absolutely useless terms and only serve to demonstrate the ignorance and callousness of the people who cling to them.




Really?


You don't think that people exist who actively look for ways to get offended?  Because let me tell you, those people absolutely exist.  I'm not saying you're one of them.  I don't know whether or not you are.  But I am one hundred percent certain that people exist for whom life is just a big way to get insulted, and no matter what you say, one way or another, they'll take offense.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
"The wizard needs to stop by their house to look up a personalized spell, one that had been developed while still in school."

Somewhere, a copy-editor's head is attempting to explode.
"The wizard needs to stop by their house to look up a personalized spell, one that had been developed while still in school."

Somewhere, a copy-editor's head is attempting to explode.


Who personalized it?  Who developed it?  At whose school?

I mean, I can assume the answers to those questions, but your sentences lacks the same quantity of information.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Really?

Absolutely.

You don't think that people exist who actively look for ways to get offended?

I know that there are. I know some of them, and they openly admit to it. What I'm saying is that trying to use that as the basis of an argument is ridiculous. It's just trying to completely dismiss what other people say by assuming that they're one of these people.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!

Anyone who thinks that they can't or shouldn't play a class because the pronoun is of a sex other than what they are is a fool, and the game shouldn't cater to fools.


Agreed. I never saw classes "attached" to a gender stereotype. Fighter and its ilk have almost always been stereotyped as "male". In fact thats the only thing I can say about playing D&D with my friends, even if a girl is in our group if she plays a Fighter or Paladin it is almost always a guy character, personal experience mind you, not hard data. 

I have never seen a male player play a class as a girl because of some text in a book.
Ant Farm
Really?

Absolutely.

You don't think that people exist who actively look for ways to get offended?

I know that there are. I know some of them, and they openly admit to it. What I'm saying is that trying to use that as the basis of an argument is ridiculous. It's just trying to completely dismiss what other people say by assuming that they're one of these people.



Certainly, using it as the basis of an argument is an ad hominem attack and should be avoided.


But the words exist to describe those people.  Not necessarily to describe you, and they're not necessarily relevant to the argument, but they're useful words that serve a purpose.

(And frankly, those people piss me off.  Because I don't really care about other people's feelings.  I don't expect people to tiptoe around the 1% of obscure subjects that may offend me, and I don't think I should be expected to do the same thing in response to others.)
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
"The wizard needs to stop by their house to look up a personalized spell, one that had been developed while still in school."

Somewhere, a copy-editor's head is attempting to explode.


Who personalized it?  Who developed it?  At whose school?

I mean, I can assume the answers to those questions, but your sentences lacks the same quantity of information.

If it's personalized, then "the wizard" developed it, apparently while still in school.

But the words exist to describe those people.  Not necessarily to describe you, and they're not necessarily relevant to the argument, but they're useful words that serve a purpose.

The problem is exactly their overuse, though, that some people just immediately jump to them with that being the extent of their reaction, like the poster that I was reponding to. When something becomes so overused, it stops actual being meaningful for what it's supposed to describe, like how curse words lose their punch when you hear them all of the time or how "epic" can now be used to describe a cat sitting on a watermelon.

If it's personalized, then "the wizard" developed it, apparently while still in school.

That's not what "personalized" means. My reading of the new sentenced with "personalized" was that the spell was developed specifically for the wizard rather than specifically by the wizard.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
"The wizard needs to stop by their house to look up a personalized spell, one that had been developed while still in school."

Somewhere, a copy-editor's head is attempting to explode.


Who personalized it?  Who developed it?  At whose school?

I mean, I can assume the answers to those questions, but your sentences lacks the same quantity of information.

If it's personalized, then "the wizard" developed it, apparently while still in school.



I know that, and I know you know that, but there's no way to know that from just the sentence.

Still waiting for a direct answer to my question.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Sign In to post comments